Loughborough UniversityInstitutional Repository

Role of urban design andplanning in disaster risk

reduction

This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repositoryby the/an author.

Citation: CHMUTINA, K., GANOR, T. and BOSHER, L., 2014. Role ofurban design and planning in disaster risk reduction. Proceedings of the ICE -Urban Design and Planning, 167(3), pp.125-135.

Additional Information:

• This article was published in the journal, Urban Design and Plan-ning [ c© ICE Publishing] and the definitive version is available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/udap.13.00011. Permission is granted by ICEPublishing to print one copy for personal use. Any other use ofthese PDF files is subject to reprint fees. The journal's website is at:http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/serial/udap.

Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/14256

Version: Published

Publisher: c© ICE Publishing

Please cite the published version.

This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) by the author and is made available under the

following Creative Commons Licence conditions.

For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

Role of urban design andplanning in disaster risk reduction

&1 Ksenia Chmutina MA, PhDResearch Associate, School of Civil and Building Engineering,Loughborough University, UK

&2 Tamar Ganor MA, MEdGIS Coordinator, Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design, Jerusalem, Israel

&3 Lee Bosher BSc, PgC, PhD, FRGS, FHEASenior Lecturer, School of Civil and Building Engineering,Loughborough University, UK

1 2 3

Recent disasters in cities worldwide have highlighted the fragility of built environments to a range of hazards and

increased concerns about the resilience of cities, with contemporary discussions considering how physical/protective

interventions can be integrated into the built environment. It is important for the numerous stakeholders involved

with the construction industry to take responsibility for integrating disaster risk reduction (DRR) activities into the

planning, (re)design, construction and operation of the built environment. It is fundamentally important to

understand which stakeholders should be involved and when their inputs are needed. Utilising two case studies in

Jerusalem and Nottingham the role of key stakeholders in the integration of DRR activities into the urban design and

planning process is evaluated. It is argued that there is a general lack of consensus regarding the roles of stakeholders

and their levels of participation. This paper identifies the commonalities and differences between key stakeholders

who should be responsible for integrating DRR activities into urban design and planning and emphasises the gaps in

stakeholders’ involvement. It is argued that there is a need to engage construction stakeholders with a wider range of

stakeholders who are typically not extensively involved in DRR, and ensure interaction among them.

1. Introduction

There is a global concern about the increasing complexity of

disasters and the impacts they have on society and the environ-

ment. The UN definition of ‘disasters’ particularly highlights the

fragility and vulnerability of the built environment.

A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society

involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental

losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected

community or society to cope using its own resources. Disasters are

often described as a result of the combination of: the exposure to a

hazard; the conditions of vulnerability that are present; and

insufficient capacity or measures to reduce or cope with the

potential negative consequences. Disaster impacts may include loss

of life, injury, disease and other negative effects on human physical,

mental and social well-being, together with damage to property,

destruction of assets, loss of services, social and economic

disruption and environmental degradation. (UNISDR, 2007b)

It is thus important to recognise that disasters often occur

because risk reduction measures have not been considered or

undertaken, despite there being previous knowledge of existing

hazards and threats (Bosher, 2014). In order to reduce disaster

risks, disaster risk reduction (DRR) approaches have been

proposed that can systematically analyse and manage the causal

factors of disasters ‘through reduced exposure to hazards,

lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management

of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for

adverse events’ (UNISDR, 2011).

DRR can be seen as an ongoing cycle of interrelated activities,

by which governments, businesses and communities plan and

reduce the impact of disasters, react during a disaster and take

action to recover after a disaster has occurred (Thayaparan

et al., 2010). DRR measures should be seen as a continuous

process, with resilience being methodically built into the

design, construction and operation processes (DCOP), rather

Urban Design and Planning

Role of urban design and planning indisaster risk reductionChmutina, Ganor and Bosher

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/udap.13.00011

Paper 1300011

Received 31/05/2013 Accepted 29/01/2014

Keywords: buildings, structures & design/disaster

engineering/safety & hazards

ice | proceedings ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

1

than added on to a construction project as an ‘afterthought’

(Bosher et al., 2007a).

Spatial planning is increasingly becoming an attractive and

important tool for DRR, as it presents an opportunity to

regulate the long-term use of space through which exposure to

natural hazards and human-induced threats can be minimised

(Sutanta et al., 2010). In order to protect societies and economies

it is important to understand the sensitivity of the built

environment and the necessity to adapt it to the impacts of a

multitude of hazards and threats. This can be achieved through

pro-active DRR measures implemented during DCOP by the

construction professionals, whose knowledge and experience, it

is argued, fits into DRR approaches (Bosher et al., 2007a). The

involvement of construction professionals in DRR has in the

past largely been associated with a range of critical activities such

as temporary shelter before and after the disaster and restoration

of public services (e.g. hospitals, schools, power lines) and so on

(World Bank, 2001). In reality, however, construction experts

have a much broader role to anticipate, assess, prevent, prepare,

respond and recover (Keraminiyage et al., 2007). Pena-Mora

(2005) makes a valuable point that construction professionals

have a key role to play in DRR because they are involved in the

construction of the infrastructure, and therefore should also be

involved when infrastructure is destroyed by an event.

Other professions should not be underestimated either, as multi-

stakeholder participation can increase the capacity and cap-

ability of those who take part in DRR. Involvement of various

public and private stakeholders can also lead to and facilitate

knowledge and experience sharing. It is essential to identify

those stakeholders who can have a positive influence over DRR

in the built environment at various stages of DCOP, including

commissioning, operation and maintenance (Mojtahedi and Oo,

2012), as decision making requires an integrated understanding

of how to avoid and mitigate the effects of risks and disasters.

This paper sets out to understand which stakeholders should

be involved and when they should optimally be involved.

Based on two international case studies in Jerusalem, Israel

and Nottingham, England, it discusses the role of key

stakeholders in the integration of DRR activities in DCOP,

as well as identifying the commonalities and differences

between the key stakeholders who should be responsible for

integrating DRR measures at specific stages of DCOP and

emphasising the gaps in stakeholders’ involvement.

Section 2 of this paper gives an overview of stakeholders’

involvement in DRR and gives an introduction to the

construction process in England and Israel. Section 3 provides

a methodological overview, and Section 4 discusses the context

of the case studies. Section 5 outlines stakeholder involvement,

while Section 6 presents conclusions.

2. Incorporation of DRR into DCOP

2.1 Stakeholders in DRR

The definition of a stakeholder dates back to the 1980s, when

Freeman (1984) explained that a stakeholder can be an individual

or a group who can have an effect, or is influenced by the goals

and objectives of an institution. Harrison et al. (2010) define

stakeholders as those who play decision-making roles, and who

take advantage of those decisions. Based on these definitions,

Mojtahedi and Oo (2012) propose that in order to reduce disaster

risk in the built environment, it is the responsibility of

stakeholders to cope with the devastating impact of disasters

effectively; therefore the involvement (and non-involvement) of

various stakeholders has to be carefully considered in DRR.

UNISDR (2007a) sees multi-stakeholder participation as an

important DRR mechanism, as it leads to coordination,

analysis and advice on areas of priority among a multiplicity

of organisations and individuals working at various levels of

governance. Stein and Edwards (1999: p. 244) define the multi-

stakeholder platform as ‘decision making bodies (voluntary or

statutory) comprising different stakeholders who perceive the

same resource management problem, realise their interdepen-

dence for solving it, and come together to agree on action

strategies for solving the problem’.

However, despite the fact that the role of multiple stakeholders is

important for effective DRR, literature that comprehensively

explains the involvement of various stakeholders in DRR is scarce,

particularly with regard to DCOP. Djalante (2012) discusses a lack

of technical support and exchange between local stakeholders.

Thayaparan et al. (2010) mention stakeholders that should be

involved in disaster reconstruction projects, with the particular

emphasis on local government, as it has a power to monitor,

control and guide reconstruction work. Mileti (1999), Ofori (2004)

and Bosher and Dainty (2011) also underline the importance of

the construction sector in minimising the adverse impacts of

disasters through hazard mitigation. Traditionally, two types

of hazard mitigation are considered (Bosher et al., 2007b).

& Structural mitigation, such as the strengthening of the

buildings or infrastructure that is exposed to hazards. This

can be done using various engineering design and con-

struction practices as well as building codes.

& Non-structural mitigation, such as relocating existing

developments or directing new developments away from

known hazard locations, maintaining protective features of

the natural environment, public awareness raising, profes-

sional training and so on.

The construction sector can play an important role in

structural mitigation, while non-structural mitigation can be

influenced by planners and developers.

Urban Design and Planning Role of urban design andplanning in disaster riskreductionChmutina, Ganor and Bosher

2

2.2 DRR in DCOP

DCOP in England can best be described using the stages

suggested by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)

‘plan of work’, which is a definitive model for the building

design and construction process (RIBA, 2007). (Although

current RIBA stages are being revised and were changed in

2013 (RIBA, 2012), the new proposed stages are not

dramatically different, and the changes would not affect the

results of this paper.) The process starts with the ‘preparation’

and ‘appraisal’ and continues through the pre-construction and

construction stages to the ‘change of use’, when the whole

process starts again. Five project stages and phases are detailed

in Table 1.

It is important to note that not all stakeholders have to be

involved/are involved in every stage of the process due to the

professional remits. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the

difference between the reality (who is involved) and the best

practice (who should be involved) in DRR activities, and at

what stage.

While RIBA stages cover DCOP, they do not provide any

indication of the stages at which DRR measures should best be

implemented. Bosher et al. (2007a) suggest the following

aligning of the DRR with generic design/planning and building

phases (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 demonstrates that it is important to identify and

determine the risks of a particular hazard/threat (or number of

hazards/threats) on a chosen site during the preparation and early

design stages when the decision is made on why, what and where

to build. While in the best case scenario the ways of reducing the

identified risks are also discussed, it is highly unlikely that this

would take place at the early stages of DCOP. Therefore the

measures to reduce the risks and to choose the most suitable DRR

measures should be incorporated during the pre-construction

phases when not only non-structural but also structural DRR

measures can be implemented. If new hazards/threats emerge

during the construction and post-construction phases, or during

the change of use, all stages have to be reviewed again.

3. Methodology

This paper is a continuation of the study conducted by Bosher

et al. (2007a), in which the UK construction stakeholders and

their involvement in the DRR process is described. The aim of

this paper is to present similar findings but on a more local

Stage Stage name Generic phases Stage description

1 Preparation Appraisal

Design briefing

Identification of client’s needs and objectives, business

case and possible constraints on development.

Identification of procurement method, procedures,

organisational structure and range of consultants and

others to be engaged for the project.

2 Design Concept

Design development

Technical design

Outline proposals for structural and building services

systems, outline specifications and preliminary cost

plan. Development of concept design to include

structural and building services systems, updated

outline specifications and cost plan. Application for

detailed planning permission. Preparation of technical

design(s) and specifications.

3 Pre-construction phases Product information

Tender documentation

Tender action

Preparation of detailed information for construction.

Preparation and/or collation of tender documentation.

Identification and evaluation of potential contractors

and/or specialists for the project.

4 Construction phases Project planning

(mobilisation)

Construction to practical

completion

Issuing of information to the contractor.

Provision to the contractor of further information as

and when reasonably required. Review of information

provided by contractors and specialists.

5 Use Post-practical completion Administration of the building contract after practical

completion and making final inspections. Assisting

building user during initial occupation period. Review

of project performance in use.

Table 1. Planning, design and construction stages

Urban Design and Planning Role of urban design andplanning in disaster riskreductionChmutina, Ganor and Bosher

3

scale. The case studies presented in the paper are Nottingham

and Jerusalem. The selected case studies are a part of an

ongoing 4-year EU-funded project (Desurbs; for more details,

go to http://www.desurbs.eu/), which examines the design and

planning of safer urban spaces and is engaged in developing

lessons and recommendations for the practice community.

The research employed a qualitative case study methodology,

including online survey and semistructured face-to-face inter-

views, as well as a review of the relevant literature. For each of

the case studies, extensive preliminary data regarding the

hazard and threats in the case study city were collected.

Interviewees represented a range of stakeholders directly or

indirectly involved in DCOP. They were asked to fill in the

matrix in order to indicate their opinion on the involvement of

other stakeholders in DRR during DCOP. This opinion was

then compared with the real situation. During the interviews

the stakeholders were encouraged to discuss their choices.

As this study is qualitative in focus, looking in depth at a

relatively small number of case studies and responses is not

statistically accurate and only provides empirical evidence.

However, it highlights the gaps in stakeholders’ engagement and

allows improved understanding about the relative importance of

stakeholders’ collaboration in DRR activities during DCOP.

4. Case studies descriptionA diverse number of threats to the building environment exists

in Nottingham and Jerusalem, including both extreme natural

and human-induced hazards.

4.1 Overview of hazards and threats in Nottingham

(England)

Flooding is arguably one of the greatest natural hazards that

poses direct risks to urban areas in Nottingham. Nottingham is

located in the East Midlands region of England and has a

history of flooding dating back to 1795. The current flood

defences were built after serious flooding in 1947 affected 45 km

of road, 3000 properties and 86 factories in the city centre. After

further significant flood events in 1998 and 2000, the UK

government’s Environment Agency worked with partner

organisations to study the flood risk over the entire length of

the River Trent and its main tributaries (Nottingham and

Nottinghamshire Local Resilience Forum, 2011). The findings

were published in the fluvial Trent strategy (EA, 2005), which

showed that the existing defences offered a relatively low

standard of protection compared with the latest best practice

recommendations. Based on this work the Environment Agency

prepared and started work to reduce flood risk by building the

Nottingham left bank flood alleviation scheme. The £51 million

flood alleviation scheme aims to reduce the risk of flooding to

16 000 homes and businesses along a 27 km stretch of the River

Trent, from Sawley to Colwick (Figure 2). It also provides

additional protection to key infrastructure at the heart of the

communities along this stretch of the Trent.

Currently, the probability of flooding across Nottingham is

about 1% (1 in 100 chance) in any given year.

Other natural hazards that affect Nottingham include severe

weather such as storms and gales, low temperatures and heavy

snow, heat waves and drought (Cabinet Office, 2010).

However, not all problems in Nottingham are of natural

origin; between 2000 and 2003 the press and other media

claimed Nottingham was the ‘gun-crime capital of the UK’,

and was dubbed ‘Shottingham’ in some areas (Alderson and

Copping, 2007; Doward, 2007). A crime survey by Reform

(Gibbs and Haldenby, 2006) states that Nottingham topped

the crime rankings for police statistics on murders, burglaries

and vehicle crime, and ‘had almost five times the level of crime

Genericplanning/design/buildphases

Pre-project phases

Preparation

DRR inputs

Hazard identificationMitigative adaptations

Preparedness planning

Hazard identification review

Preparedness planning (includingresponse)

Recovery planning

These are the key stages for DRR inputs

DesignPre-construction phases Construction phases

Post-completion phases

Use

Figure 1. Disaster risk reduction (DRR) activities aligned with

generic planning, design and construction stages

Urban Design and Planning Role of urban design andplanning in disaster riskreductionChmutina, Ganor and Bosher

4

as the safest town in the rankings’. While the crime figures in

the city are relatively high for England, initiatives introduced

to tackle the levels of crime appear to have had an effect, with a

2006 Home Office survey showing that the overall level of

crime in the city was down by 12% since 2003 (Nottingham

City Council, 2006). Initiatives include the community and

neighbourhood protection service developed by Nottingham

City Council, Nottinghamshire police and Nottingham city

homes to take an uncompromising stance towards antisocial

behaviour. While Nottingham is not prone to other man-made

hazards, due to the high level of crime and its impacts on the

community, the authors as well as the interviewed stakeholders

(as will be described later) see crime reduction as a part of the

DRR.

4.2 Overview of hazards and threats in Jerusalem,

Israel

Similarly to Nottingham, Jerusalem is also prone to both

natural and man-made hazards. In terms of natural hazards,

earthquakes receive the most attention. Most of the city was

built before 1980, a year when earthquake standards were

incorporated into building regulations. In addition, many of the

buildings that can potentially be damaged by earthquakes are

closely built and based on older stratas and landfills, thus

enhancing instability. Some of these areas include national and

international heritage sites, and improving their resilience

involves many aspects in addition to design, planning and

building issues (Israeli Science and Technology National

Committee, 2011).

Not only in Israel but also worldwide, Jerusalem has a unique

status that makes it a target for man-made threats. Its religious

and political importance has enhanced vulnerabilities in the

urban area, especially in landmark perimeters, which include

conservation monuments such as the Stone Temple, Church of

the Holy Sepulchre and the Western Wall, and government

buildings such as the Prime Minister’s official residence and the

house of parliament – the Knesset. These high-profile sites

have been used numerous times as spaces for public activity

such as rallies and demonstrations as well as targets for

terrorist attacks (Figure 3). As the governance sites are well

protected (Pedahzur and Paran, 2003), terrorist attacks have

often struck Jerusalem in many public areas, which are easy to

access and host a large volume of people (Savitch, 2005).

5. Stakeholder involvement: who isinvolved, why, when?

5.1 Overview of the stakeholders’ involvement in

England and Israel

The identification of stakeholders in the built environment

depends on the phase of the project (Mojtahedi and Oo, 2012),

but the generic set of stakeholders includes local government,

Flooding from rivers or sea without defences

Extent of extreme floodFlood defences (not all may be shown)

Areas benefiting from flood defences (not all may be shown)

Main rivers

Scale: 1 : 75 000

N

Figure 2 Flood map for Nottingham (Source: Environment Agency

information �2013)

Number of attacks

Terror attacks

Municipal limits of Jerusalem

8259373010

871

Explosive device

0 0.5 1 2 3 4km

N

StabbingShootingOther attackGrenadeMortar bombMolotov cocktailArson

Terror type

Figure 3. The map of terrorist attacks in Jerusalem in 1990–2002

Urban Design and Planning Role of urban design andplanning in disaster riskreductionChmutina, Ganor and Bosher

5

contractors and subcontractors, suppliers, financial institu-

tions, insurance companies, and the affected local community.

Stakeholders involved in DRR are generally defined in various

laws and regulations that cover the responsibilities of different

agencies, institutional arrangements and execution of opera-

tional procedures. Their structure and hierarchy depends on

the government system, but in most cases governmental laws

and regulations are required to provide directives for local

government action (Sutanta et al., 2010).

In England (as part of the UK) the integration of DRR

measures in urban planning and DCOP is starting to receive

increasing attention. For example, the Civil Contingencies Act

2004 (Civil Contingencies Secretariat, 2004) requires local

authorities in England to produce a multi-hazard/threat risk

assessment. It also places a legal duty on local authorities and

other key agencies to maintain the local risk assessments in a

community risk register (Cabinet Office, 2010), which is a basis

for supporting the preparation of emergency plans and

appropriate decisions regarding urban planning. The Civil

Contingencies Act puts in place a framework that enables a

wide range of stakeholders to be involved with emergency

management planning; however, the broader process within

DRR measures is not encouraged, neither does it give a clear

perspective on the extent to which construction professionals

are involved in this framework (Bosher et al., 2007b).

In contrast to England, there are no legislative requirements

for local governments to incorporate security and resilience

into urban spaces in Israel (Pedahzur and Paran, 2003).

However, there is legislation to incorporate a protected space

inside buildings to defend them from the effects of warfare

(Knesset, 1965). Legislative and regulation bodies in Israel

have not identified risk mitigation as a needed inherent phase

of planning and construction. The only risk type that is

formally surveyed as part of the planning and building process

is environmental hazards. While no formal arrangements are in

place to coordinate stakeholders involved in emergency

planning and preparedness, such as that which resulted from

the Civil Contingencies Act in England, a similar network of

relationships between various stakeholders has been partially

established in general guidelines; however, it is not executed

properly during real-time events and not practised thoroughly

(Ministry of Public Security, 2012).

Table 2 lists stakeholders that have formal input regarding the

integration of DRR activities in pre-construction and construc-

tion phases in Israel and England. There is a great resemblance

between the stakeholders involved in pre-construction and

construction phases in England and Israel. For example, the

involvement of local authorities is obvious in both cases: this

involvement is essential and it has been emphasised in the Incheon

Declaration (Prevention Web, 2009), which stated the importance

DCOP stage England Israel

Pre-construction Urban planners/designers Local and national planning and building committee

Client Local municipality’s engineer

Developer Construction inspector

Civil and structural engineers Various government agencies (environmental, health etc.)

Emergency/risk managers Home Front Command

Local authorities Infrastructure authorities and utilities

Contractors Local licensing authority

Utilities companies Emergency authorities

Material suppliers

Construction Architects/designers Architects

Civil/structural engineers Engineers

Contractors Clients

Utilities companies Project manager/developer

Planners

Construction engineer

Systems planner

Safety advisor

Contractors and subcontractors

Internal inspector

Execution inspector

Table 2. List of stakeholders involved in integration of disaster risk

reduction activities in design, construction and operation processes

Urban Design and Planning Role of urban design andplanning in disaster riskreductionChmutina, Ganor and Bosher

6

of local governments in DRR. It is also clear that while

construction sector stakeholders are crucial in implementing

structural measures, a wider set of stakeholders has a positive

impact on non-structural elements. However, there are some

unique characteristics to the way DRR measures are implemented

in the case studies. This is discussed in detail in the next section.

5.2 Stakeholders’ involvement in the case study

cities

Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate the real and anticipated involvement

of private and public stakeholders in DRR during DCOP; that is,

which stakeholders are or should be involved, and at what stage.

While these results do not represent statistical accuracy due to the

small size of the respondents’ sample, they enable the identifica-

tion of general similarities and differences in the involvement of

the key stakeholders at different stages of DCOP, as well as seeing

the perceived importance and formality of these inputs. It is

important to note that in both cases some stakeholders are only

involved in particular stages of DCOP rather than the whole

process as a result of their professional remits.

In both cases, architects were perceived to be the most important

construction sector stakeholder, who could provide essential

inputs into DRR throughout DCOP. It was suggested that other

significant stakeholders were clients, developers and engineers.

Planners and emergency services stakeholders were perceived as

not being involved in some of the phases; however, it was

admitted that they should have a bigger input in DRR,

particularly during the design and pre-construction phases.

Both cases allocate only a small role to trade organisations and

representatives, insurers and the general public. End-users were

also perceived as a non-important stakeholder. Academic

literature often argues (e.g. Djalante, 2012) that end-users should

be involved, but the empirical evidence drawn from the case

studies provides a different picture: while it may be a theoretical

concern, stakeholders do not think that end-users should play a

big role (if any) in DRR decisions. This may be explained by the

possibility that the end-user is not necessarily known during the

earlier stages of the DCOP; for example, it may not be clear what

companies are going to occupy the space in office developments.

The biggest difference in the two case studies lies in the

involvement of government agencies and local authorities. This

dissimilarity is evident throughout DCOP: despite the fact that

there are policies supporting and encouraging the involvement

of local authorities in DRR activities in England, the evidence

Generic planning/design/build phases Preparation

DRR inputs

Architects/designersClientContractorDevelopersEmergency servicesEmergency/risk managersEnd-userEngineersEnvironmental consultantGeneral publicGovernment agenciesInsurersLocal authoritiesMaterial suppliersPlannersProfessional/tradeorganisationsProject managersQuantity surveyorsSurveyorsUtility companies

KeyStakeholders do have aninput (actual involvement)

These are key stages for DRR input

Stakeholders should havean input (ideal scenario)Stakeholders’ input is notrequired

Hazard identificationMitigative adaptations

Design Pre-construction phases Construction phases

Hazard identification review

Preparedness planning Preparedness planning (including response)Recovery planning

Use

Figure 4. Illustration of multiple stakeholder inputs into disaster

risk reduction (DRR) activities in Nottingham, England, aligned with

generic design, construction and operation process stages

Urban Design and Planning Role of urban design andplanning in disaster riskreductionChmutina, Ganor and Bosher

7

in Figure 4 suggests that Nottingham local authorities are

engaged in DRR only if they are expected to be. On the

contrary, they are seen as important stakeholders with formal

specified roles and are involved in all the stages of the process in

Jerusalem. A good example of the involvement of the govern-

mental agencies is the role played by the Home Front Command

(HFC), which is perceived to be one of the main actors in DRR

activities. (As only generic stakeholders’ groups are presented in

Figures 4 and 5, the HFC is included in the ‘governmental

agencies’ group of stakeholders.) The HFC does not have an

equivalent in England. The HFC is a military branch in charge of

defending and managing civilians during times of crisis (HFC,

2013). It sees itself as the only non-political mechanism during

the process of planning permissions, as they do not represent

(and thus cannot be influenced by) construction stakeholders, the

private sector or government bodies.

Another big difference is in the involvement of environmental

consultants, who, in the case of Nottingham, are seen as an

integral part of DRR and are suggested to play an even bigger

role during the crucial stages of design and pre-construction. In

Jerusalem, they are only involved at the first stage, and it is

suggested that their involvement should end there; however, this

may soon change because, according to some of the interviewees,

the environmental practices are slowly being implemented in the

public agenda.

Overall, during the process of data collection, it became clear

that there is an apparent disconnect between the stakeholders

who should be involved and those who are involved in reality.

In addition, although some of the stakeholders are involved in

DRR, their inputs are not always formal and clear.

In terms of the time of the involvement, Figures 4 and 5 suggest

that the crucial phase of the negotiation and implementation of

DRR measures is during the first three stages of the process, as

has been described in Table 1 and emphasised in Figure 1

(preparation, design and pre-construction). However, while the

early phases of DCOP are understood as being essential for

DRR, stakeholders’ engagement does not necessarily take place.

For example, Figure 4 shows that emergency services are not

necessarily involved until the construction phase, when it can be

too late to implement DRR measures that have not been

considered, thus making them more expensive but less effective.

The situation can also be to the contrary if any unnecessary

DRR measures have been installed.

Generic planning/design/build phases Preparation

DRR inputs

Architects/designersClientContractorDevelopersEmergency servicesEmergency/risk managersEnd-userEngineersEnvironmental consultantGeneral publicGovernment agenciesInsurersLocal authoritiesMaterial suppliersPlannersProfessional/tradeorganisationsProject managersSurveyorsUtility companies

KeyStakeholders do have aninput (actual involvement) These are key stages for DRR input

Stakeholders’ input is notrequired

Stakeholders should havean input (ideal scenario)

Hazard identificationMitigative adaptations

Design Pre-construction phases Construction phases

Hazard identification review

Preparedness planning Preparedness planning (including response)Recovery planning

Use

Figure 5. Illustration of multiple stakeholder inputs into disaster

risk reduction (DRR) activities in Jerusalem, Israel, aligned with

generic design, construction and operation process stages

Urban Design and Planning Role of urban design andplanning in disaster riskreductionChmutina, Ganor and Bosher

8

The preparation phase is suggested to be largely ignored,

particularly in the case of Nottingham, where only stakeholders

directly involved in the construction process (e.g. architects,

engineers, client) have an input. It would, however, be beneficial

to the project if more stakeholders were involved, as during the

preparation stage developers can discuss the project with a

number of agencies in order to identify and address any areas of

conflict, and thus ensure that the application goes smoothly

(While and Howe, 2005). Importantly, issues resolved at this

stage are also less time consuming and costly. However, little

discussion takes place in reality, mainly due to a perceived deficit

of knowledge about the possible solutions and their effects, or

about the bodies that can highlight potential barriers.

Most involvement occurs (and should occur) during the design,

pre-construction and construction phases, with both private and

public stakeholders playing various roles. The pre-construction

phase was identified by the stakeholders as the critical phase in

DCOP when DRR should be integrated. Figures 4 and 5

demonstrate that the majority of the stakeholders are involved

in this phase; however, the large number of the stakeholders

involved does not guarantee the successful and effective

implementation of DRR. This is due to the lack of interaction

between the agencies involved. There is a lack of a clear workflow

in everyday functions, as well as a methodical disregard of

official protocol during emergencies, as acknowledged by some

of the respondents in both case study cities. Despite the official

emergency protocols being constantly updated, they are not

sufficiently practised. Another reason for the lack of implemen-

tation of DRR is the lack of capacity; for example, despite the

fact that the HFC has the capability to be more engaged in DRR

and is theoretically required to participate in the local building

committees, the main challenge is the lack of capacity due to the

lack of human resources. Similar situations are also a reality in

Nottingham, where local authorities lack financial resources and

thus personnel to be more proactively engaged in DRR activities

with the construction sector. Efforts have been made in

Nottingham towards encouraging the cooperation of various

stakeholders. For instance, Fisher et al. (2012) report that the

local resilience forum consists of multi-agency partnerships made

up of representatives from local public services, including the

emergency services, local authorities, the NHS, the Environment

Agency and other government and non-governmental agencies.

However, while many stakeholders find this mechanism useful, it

faces such challenges as funding, inter-agency communication,

lack of decision-making and so on. In addition, the members of

the local resilience forum do not necessarily include a large

number of construction stakeholders (Fisher et al., 2012).

A wide range of stakeholder inputs occurs during the construc-

tion phase. This is, however, not the most crucial phase of

DCOP with regard to DRR, because (in the best case scenario)

any DRR measures should have already been taken into

account. Similarly, consideration of DRR during the post-

completion phase is an ‘afterthought’; however, in the case of

retrofit or change of use, it is crucial for stakeholders to

reconsider the risks and use this opportunity to improve the

DRR measures.

6. ConclusionsThe objective of this paper was to identify the key stakeholders

who are or should be responsible for integrating DRR

measures into DCOP, and discuss the gaps in stakeholders’

involvement. This paper emphasises the need to engage

construction stakeholders with a wider range of stakeholders,

who are typically not extensively involved in DRR, and ensure

interaction among them.

A number of recent extreme weather events and man-made

threats have shown that timely and effective reactive measures

(i.e. emergency response and recovery) are not sufficient in

keeping the built environment safe; it is vital to deal with hazards

and threats proactively, with a wide range of stakeholders being

involved.

It is acknowledged that although there are limitations to using

a two-city/country case study approach, the results presented

here are nonetheless indicative of the reality (in contrast to the

rhetoric) of multi-stakeholder approaches to incorporating

DRR into urban design and planning. Accordingly, five main

conclusions can be drawn from the responses.

& It is clear that in both cities there is a lack of consensus on

the roles of the stakeholders and the level of participation in

DRR activities. The data collection process showed that

there is a degree of disagreement as to whether a

stakeholder should or should not be involved in a particular

stage of DCOP. For example, some of the interviewees

believed that while urban planners and designers are highly

involved in the process, they should play a much smaller

role and only participate in the pre-project phase and post-

completion phase with regard to DRR.

& There is also evidence that various stakeholders are not

sufficiently informed about who is and who is not involved

in DRR activities and who might provide a valuable insight

into the most appropriate DRR measures. These issues

should be resolved as lack of knowledge about participants

decreases the effectiveness of measures. In addition, it is

important to engage the end-users and general public by

providing specific support to enhance the awareness of

DRR as well as to encourage participation at the grassroots

level.

& Despite the presence of the legislation for integrating DRR

into DCOP, many stakeholders have no practical experi-

ence in dealing with DRR. At the same time, many of the

planning procedures and regulations are not known by

Urban Design and Planning Role of urban design andplanning in disaster riskreductionChmutina, Ganor and Bosher

9

stakeholders outside the planning departments. Many of the

stakeholders involved in the early stages of the project

crucial for DRR measures lack information about the

possible options. This indicates that there may be a need to

integrate DRR principles into the core professional training

(or at least continued professional development) of some of

these key stakeholders.

& The legislation used in the construction sector suffers from

the absence of clear policy when it comes to the integration

of DRR measures in both case study countries, and does

not always allow stakeholders involved in DCOP to obtain

a clear view of the full extent of the norms that apply to the

DRR activities in construction.

& When taking both DCOP stages and DRR into account, it

becomes clear that the pre-construction phase is critical in

the design–construction–operation process, and it is at this

stage that the the DRR measures should be instigated.

Despite the fact that construction stages and integrated

security and resilience framework stages are not compar-

able, they can be aligned in order to inform the stakeholders

about the possible options of incorporating DRR measures.

The engagement of a wider set of stakeholders in DRR during

DCOP is important as the information and knowledge of

various stakeholders about the risks and impacts of a

particular hazard can be assessed and incorporated into the

concept of the project, thus leading to the most effective and

efficient strategy in DRR.

The limitation of this study is realised as only empirical

evidence of the local-level stakeholders’ engagement was

demonstrated; therefore, no specific recommendations can be

provided at this stage. In addition, various contexts will require

various solutions. Nonetheless, it is clear that the incorpora-

tion of DRR into DCOP can benefit from an implementation

of the framework that supports various stakeholders in making

informed decisions in the pro-active implementation of DRR.

AcknowledgementsThis article has drawn from empirical work collected through

the EU Framework 7 security project Designing Safer Urban

Spaces (DESURBS). The authors would also like to thank

Professor Mike Turner for the insightful comments on an early

draft of the paper.

REFERENCES

Alderson A and Copping J (2007) Police joined dark side to

regain Nottingham. Daily Telegraph, 5 August 2007.

Bosher L (2014) Built-in resilience through disaster risk

reduction: operational issues. Building Research and

Information 42(2): 240–254.

Bosher LS and Dainty ARJ (2011) Disaster risk reduction and

‘built-in’ resilience: towards overarching principles for

construction practice. Disasters: The Journal of Disaster

Studies, Policy and Management 35(1): 1–18.

Bosher L, Dainty ARJ, Carrillo P and Glass J (2007a) Built-in

resilience to disasters: a pre-emptive approach. Engineering,

Construction and Architectural Management 14(5): 434–446.

Bosher L, Dainty A, Carrillo P, Glass J and Price A (2007b)

Integrating disaster risk management into construction: a

UK perspective. Building Research and Information 35(2):

163–177.

Cabinet Office (2010) National Risk Register of Civil

Emergencies, 2010 edn. HMSO, London, UK.

Civil Contingencies Secretariat (2004) Civil Contingencies Act

2004: A Short Guide. Cabinet Office, London, UK.

Djalante R (2012) Adaptive governance and resilience: the role

of multi-stakeholder platforms in disaster risk reduction.

Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 12(9): 2923–

2942.

Doward J (2007) Brutal ganglord who fell victim to his own

drugs. The Observer, 5 August 2007.

EA (Environment Agency) (2005) Fluvial Trent Strategy.

Environment Agency, London, UK.

EA (2013) Risk of Flooding from Rivers and Seas: Nottingham.

Interactive map. See http://www.environment-agency.gov.

uk/homeandleisure/floods/31652.aspx (accessed 31/05/2013).

Fisher J, Harre-Young SN and Bosher L (2012) Understanding the

relationship between resilience and sustainability:

emergency planning and the design of urban space. In

Proceedings of REAL CORP 2012 Re-mixing the City –

Towards Sustainability and Resilience? (Schrenk M,

Popovich VV and Zeile P (eds)). Schwechat, Austria,

pp. 965–973.

Freeman RE (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder

Approach. Pitman, Boston, MA, USA.

Gibbs B and Haldenby A (2006) Urban Crime Rankings. See

http://reform.co.uk/client_files/www.reform.co.uk/files/

urban_crime_rankings.pdf (accessed 31/05/2013).

Harrison JS, Bose DA and Phillips RA (2010) Managing for

stakeholders, stakeholders utility function, and competitive

advantage. Strategic Management Journal 74(1): 58–74.

HFC (Home Front Command) (2013) http://www.oref.org.il/

International/14-en/PAKAR.aspx (accessed 31/05/2013).

Israeli Science and Technology National Committee (2011)

Protocol No. 78. See http://www.knesset.gov.il/protocols/

data/rtf/mada/2011-01-17.rtf. (accessed 31/05/2013) (in

Israeli).

Keraminiyage KP, Amaratunga RDG and Haigh RP (2007) Role of

construction in managing disasters in developing

economies. Proceedings of Annual Bank Conference on

Developing Economics. The World Bank, Bled, Slovenia.

Knesset (1965) Israel Planning and Construction Law. See http://

www.moit.gov.il/NR/exeres/D129ACB3-7445-4F76-8225-

FC2D9BFAEB34.htm (accessed 31/05/2013) (in Israeli).

Mileti D (1999) Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural

Urban Design and Planning Role of urban design andplanning in disaster riskreductionChmutina, Ganor and Bosher

10

Hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press,

Washington DC, USA.

Ministry of Public Security (2012) The Minister of Public

Security’s Response to the State Comptroller’s Report on the

Mt. Carmel Fire. See http://mops.gov.il/english/

aboutusenglish/news/pages/ministerresponsecarmelfire.

aspx (accessed 11/02/2014).

Mojtahedi MSH and Oo BL (2012) Stakeholders’ approaches

towards natural disasters in built environment: a

theoretical framework. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual

ARCOM Conference (Smith SD (ed.)), 3–5 September,

Edinburgh, UK. Association of Researchers in

Construction Management, pp. 133–142.

Nottingham City Council (2006) Some Facts About Crime in

Nottinghamshire. Nottingham City Council, UK.

Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Local Resilience Forum (2011)

Community Risk Register. 3.7 ed. Nottingham and

Nottinghamshire Local Resilience Forum, Nottingham, UK.

Ofori G (2004) Construction Industry Development for Disaster

Prevention and Response. National University of Singapore.

See http://www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/i-rec%20papers/

ofori.pdf (accessed 31/05/2013).

Pedahzur A and Paran G (2003) Terror in Jerusalem. Jerusalem

Institute for Israeli Studies, Israel.

Pena-Mora W (2005) Collaborative First Response to Disaster

Involving Critical Physical Infrastructure. O’Neal Faculty

scholar seminar, University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign, IL, USA.

Prevention Web (2009) Incheon Declaration on Disaster Risk

Reduction in Asia and the Pacific 2010. UNISDR AP. See

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/

publications/v.php?id516327 (accessed 29/05/2013).

RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) (2007) The Architect’s

Plan of Work. RIBA, London, UK.

RIBA (2012) RIBA Plan of Work 2013: Consultation Document.

See http://www.architecture.com/Files/

RIBAProfessionalServices/Practice/FrontlineLetters/

RIBAPlanofWork2013ConsultationDocument.pdf

(accessed 29/05/2013).

Savitch HV (2005) An anatomy of urban terror: lessons from

Jerusalem and elsewhere. Urban Studies 42(3): 361–395.

State Comptroller and Ombudsman (2010) Carmel Fire Report.

See http://www.mevaker.gov.il/serve/contentTree.

asp?bookid5616&id52&contentid5&parentcid5undefined&

sw51366&hw5698 (accessed 29/05/2013).

Stein NA and Edwards VM (1999) Platforms for collective action

in multiple-use common-pool resources. Agricultural and

Human Values 16(3): 241–255.

Sutanta H, Rajanifard A and Bishop ID (2010) Integrating spatial

planning and disaster risk reduction at the local level in the

context of spatially enabled government. Proceedings of the

GSDI 12 World Conference: Realising Spatially Enabled

Societies, Singapore.

Thayaparan M, Siriwardena ML, Amaratunga RDG, Kaklauskas A

and Lill I (2010) Reforming HEI to improve skills and

knowledge on disaster resilience among construction

professionals. Proceedings of the Construction, Building and

Real Estate Research Conference 2010, Paris, France.

UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction)

(2007a) Guidelines: National Platform for Disaster Risk

Reduction. See http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/

publications/601 (accessed 29/05/2013).

UNISDR (2007b) Terminology. See http://www.unisdr.org/we/

inform/terminology#letter-d (accessed 27/01/2014).

UNISDR (2011) GAR: Global Assessment Report on Disaster

Risk Reduction: Revealing Risk, Redefining Development.

See http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/

en/home/download.html (accessed 29/05/2013).

While I and Howe J (2005) Unpacking the barriers to

sustainable urban drainage use. Journal of Environmental

Policy and Planning 7(1): 25–41.

World Bank (2001) India: World Bank and Asian Development

Bank Complete Preliminary Gujarat Earthquake Damage

Assessment and Recovery Plan. See http://reliefweb.int/

report/india/india-world-bank-and-asian-development-

bank-complete-preliminary-gujarat-earthquake (accessed

29/05/2013).

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be

forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered

appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as

discussion in a future issue of the journal.

Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in

by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-

dents. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing

papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate

illustrations and references. You can submit your paper

online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,

where you will also find detailed author guidelines.

Urban Design and Planning Role of urban design andplanning in disaster riskreductionChmutina, Ganor and Bosher

11